go to retail. the changes you want are there. you never wanted Classic back and are trying to sabotage it
what a well thought out response
I play both, thanks. There’s nothing wrong with wanting Classic to be better.
I am surprised you made it all the way up to level 32. The lack of QOL should have stopped you way earlier.
Gnomes are known for their stick-to-itiveness.
Oooh sabotage. As if people on the forum now control the development process.
The absolute insecurity in this bunch of no change people is amazing to watch.
2 Likes
Shhhhhhhhh!
They’re on to us.
Except it goes contrary to the design goal. And what you view as better others do not.
The Ford Mustang doesn’t follow the design goals of the Ford Model T. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong for wanting to install a five-disc CD changer to make my drives through the country more enjoyable.
The mustang isnt supposed to be an authentic recreation of the model t. Good try though. And whether or not you want your model t to be authentic does not matter either.
What matters is what the goal of classic is.
But hey nice try dodging the point.
no changes mate
1 Like
Some derps even said adding the clock into the game ruined the classic experience.
1 Like
Maybe he is a hit and run poster
How in the dickens is wanting things to remain unchanged a “slippery slope”?
The slippery slope is when you begin adding things to Classic which were never part of Vanilla. You start adding things, and next thing you know, we’ll all be playing Retail with a lower level cap.
Stick to your guns, Blizzard! No changes is the best course of action for the Classic Servers.
Not going to comment specifically on the suggestions you made, but in general the truth is that it does open up for more pushes.
There is always a close intermediate between two points, so whilst you don’t think there would be a slippery slope there actually could be.
1 and 100 could be considered far apart, but 1 and 2 are not. Then 2 and 3 are not, and 3 and 4, then 4 and 5 etc.
This is the exact way these changes were pushed into the game over the past 15 years in retail.
No LFG became LFG, LFG roles became set roles for specs, followed by LFR etc etc.
It becomes increasingly difficult to argue against changes when they are closer to current design.
Every time you cut into that margin between your two end points you bring them closer together.
I believe they are referring to using a slippery slope argument to promote #nochanges as opposed to #nochanges being a slippery slope itself.
Starts with vanilla, slowly “expands” the game into BfA over more than a decade
Decides to provide the game as it was before the growing list of expansions had changed it
Playerbase argues over whether making the same changes they did in the past will lead the game down the same path
Proponents of changes call the argument against changes a “slippery slope fallacy”
You guys are hilarious.
3 Likes
It’s not the main effect of a QOL addition that people are afraid of, its the unintended side effects which are hard to predict that people are afraid of.
Another thing too is exibit A that you are wrong is pretty much BFA. Can you prove another way that QOL improvements wont destroy that game? something other than “hey guys this is a logical fallacy”? another game that rereleased an older of their game and added QOL changes that worked for example. I think posting something like that is more likely to convince people rather than pulling the “thats a fallacy” card (even if it is true).
Your hair looks like two pink cinnamon buns, therefore your argument is invalid.
1 Like
This is the only reasonable argument I’ve read in two days.
1 Like